Sign In

The Income Tax Department NEVER asks for your PIN numbers, passwords or similar access information for credit cards, banks or other financial accounts through e-mail.

The Income Tax Department appeals to taxpayers NOT to respond to such e-mails and NOT to share information relating to their credit card, bank and other financial accounts.

Continue >


Legal Maxim
  • uberrimae fides : Of the utmost good faith; of the fullest confidence
  • ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest : Where anything is granted, that is also granted without which the thing itself is not able to exist. Applying maxim, the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi Housing Co-op. Society [2003] 113 Comp. Cas. 536, observed :— “Every Court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective.”
  • ubi eadem ratio ibi idem lex et de similibus idem est judicium : Where the same reason exists, there the same law prevails, and of things similar, the judgment is similar
  • ubi jus ibi officium : Where there is a right, there is a duty
  • ubi jus ibi remedium : Where there is a right, there is a remedy
  • ubi jus incertum, ibi jus nullum : Where one’s right is uncertain, no right exists
  • ubi remedium, ibi jus : Where there is remedy, there is a right
  • ubi supra : In the place of above (mentioned)
  • ubique : Everywhere
  • ultima voluntas testatoris est perimplenda secundum veram intentionem suam : Effect is to be given to the last will of a testator according to his true intention
  • ultimus haeres : In law, the State which succeeds to the property of those who die intestate or without next of him.
  • ultra vires : Beyond one’s power, or authority
  • universitas : A corporate body
  • uno amino : With one mind
  • uno flatu : With one breath
  • usufruct : Produce or fruit of the principal thing; issues or profits arising from something
  • ut infra : As cited below
  • ut lite pendente nihil innovetur : During a litigation nothing new should be introduced. The doctrine of lis pendens expressed in the maxim ‘ut lite pendente nihil innovetur’ has been statutorily incorporated in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. A defendant cannot, by alienating property during pendency of litigation, venture into depriving the successful plaintiff of the fruits of decree. The transferee pendente lite is treated in the eye of law as representative-in-interest of the judgment debtor and held bound by the decree passed against the judgment-debtor though neither the defendant has chosen to bring the transferee on record by apprising his opponent and the Court of the transfer made by him nor the transferee has chosen to come on record by taking recourse to order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC [Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal [2004] 15 ILD 137 (SC)]
  • ut res magis valeat quam pereat : It is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void, i.e., it is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it. A statute is supposed to be an authentic repository of the legislative will and the function of a court is to interpret it “according to the intent of them that made it.” From that function the court is not to resile, it has to abide by the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat, lest the intention of the Legislature may go in vain or be left to evaporate in thin air. (See CST v. Mangal Sen Shyam Lal AIR 1975 SC 1106.) The court should as far as possible avoid that construction which attributes irrationality to the Legislature. It must obviously prefer a construction which renders the statutory provision constitutionally valid rather than that which makes it void. (K.P. Varghese v. ITO[1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC)and State of Punjab v. Prem Sukhdas [1977] 3 SCR 403.) It is because the Legislature is presumed to enact a law, which does not contravene or violate the constitutional provisions, (M.K. Balakrishnan Menon v. ACED [1972] 83 ITR 162 (SC).) and is presumed not to have intended an excess of is own jurisdiction. (CWT v. Smt. Hasmatunnisa Begum [1989] 42 Taxman 133 (SC).) The rule is well-settled that a construction which imputes to the Legislature tautology or superfluity in the use of language must as far as possible, be avoided. The Court should always prefer a construction which will give some meaning and effect to the words used by the Legislature, rather than that which will reduce it to futility. (CIT v. R.M. Amin[1977] 106 ITR 368 (SC), Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC).) A construction which renders any provision in the Act nugatory and defeats the object of the provision, is avoided, (CIT v. S. Teja Singh[1959] 35 ITR 408 (SC).) even though the language of the statute suffers from a slight inexactitude. Thus when a harmonious construction is possible which furthers the objects of the Act, the same is preferred to a construction which leads to a conflict between the two provisions in the Act. (CWT v. Yuvraj Amrinder Singh [1985] 156 ITR 525 (SC).) Interpretation of machinery provision should be such as to makes it workable. (CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC).) All parts of a section should be construed together and every clause thereof with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction put on that particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute. (CIT v. National Taj Traders[1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC).) No part of the statute can just be ignored by saying that the Legislature enacted the same not knowing what it was saying. It is to be assumed that the Legislature deliberately used that expression and it intended to convey the same meaning. (CIT v. Distributors (Baroda) (P.) Ltd.[1972] 83 ITR 377 (SC).) Words used by Parliament must be given their ordinary meaning. (CIT v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry[1981] 130 ITR 186 (SC).) The doctrine of ut res magis valeat quam pereat is also applicable in the interpretation of an instrument, document or deed. The interpretation which upholds its validity should be preferred. (See Ram Laxman Sugar Mills v. CIT[1967] 66 ITR 613 (SC).) A deed has to be read as a whole and effect is given to all its parts, unless a part of the deed is so inconsistent with rest of it that no effect can be given to it. The law intends to save the deed if possible. This is sometimes expressed in the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat. If by a reasonable construction, the intention of the parties can be arrived at and that intention carried out consistently with the rule of law, the court will take that course. (See Narayan Prasad Vijaivargiya v. CIT [1976] 102 ITR 748 (Cal.).) This doctrine, however, cannot be pushed so far as to alter the meaning of the clear words used in an enactment and to, in effect, repeal statutory provisions, by making these useless without holding them void. (State of Punjab v. Prem Sukhdas [1977] 3 SCR 403.) Likewise if the words of the statute on a proper construction can be read only in a particular way, then it cannot be read in another way by a court of construction anxious to avoid its unconstitutionality. (See CWT v. Smt. Hasmatunnisa Begum [1989] 42 Taxman 133 (SC).)
  • ut supra : As below
1 2
© Copyright. Taxmann Publications Pvt. Ltd.